Loading...
PC Packet 5-14-19CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, May 14, 2019 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Draft Minutes of April 23, 2019 Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Minutes of April 23, 2019 Draft Minutes of April 23, 2019 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 2.Subject: Study session to create a list of objective standards topics as suggested by the Planning Commission and the public. Recommended Action: Conduct Study Session to prioritize a list for consideration Page 1 May 14, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA Staff Report 1 - suggested objective standards from Commissioner Moore 2 - suggested objective standards from Commissioner Fung NEW BUSINESS 3.Subject: General overview by Staff of the process for altering Easements Recommended Action: receive information STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Page 2 May 14, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next Planning Commission meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to Page 3 May 14, 2019Planning Commission AGENDA address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org. Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES, April 23, 2019 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m Chairperson Wang called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson R Wang, Vice Chair Vikram Saxena, Commissioners Kitty Moore, David Fung, Alan Takahashi. Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: Amended Draft Minutes of February 12, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Amended Draft Minutes of February 12, 2019 Moved by Fung and seconded by Moore to: “Approve the minutes”. The motion carried 5-0-0. 2. Subject: Draft Minutes of February 26, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of February 26, 2019 Moved by Moore and seconded by Fung to: “Approve the minutes”. The motion carried 4-0-1. (Takahashi abstained) 3. Subject: Draft Minutes of March 18, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve or modify the Draft Minutes of March 18, 2019 Moved by Fung and seconded by Wang to: “Approve the minutes”. The motion carried 5-0-0. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin spoke regarding the closure of the Black Angus restaurant in Sunnyvale WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Emails and a letter were received regarding the agenda and items 4 and 5 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC MEETINGS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 4. Subject: Discussion and recommendations to City Council on unresolved disposition of toxins and hazardous materials at Vallco site and impact on citizen health Recommended Action: Provide a recommendation to City Council (Commissioner Moore recused herself at 15 ½ mins) The Planning Commission discussed the results of the environmental reports conducted at the Vallco site. Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke: Peggy Griffin Mike Benjamin, Snr. Hazardous Materials Specialist, SCCFD Lisa Warren Jean Bedord Michelle King Pam Hershey Bern Steves Jennifer Griffin Susan Moore Danessa Techmanski Siva Gandill Liana Crabtree Joe Pereira Venkat Ranganathan Chair Wang closed the public comment period. The Planning Commissioners continued the discussion regarding the methodology of the environmental studies and approval processes for the development applications at the Vallco site. Moved by Wang and seconded by Takahashi to: “Forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City review the existing analysis of the Vallco site and the ability to conduct its own analysis”. The motion carried 4-0-1 (Moore recused). Moved by Fung and seconded by Wang to direct Staff to: “Develop a proposed revision for demolition and new construction notification processes relatable to the scale and proximity of the project based on best practices”. The motion carried 4-0-1 (Moore recused). 5. Subject: Discussion and inquiry into approval of Vallco SB35 tentative subdivision map Recommended Action: Conduct discussion and inquiry (Commissioner Moore recused herself at 2 hrs, 56 mins) The Planning Commission discussed the approval process of the SB35 application and the requirements for approval as prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act for the Vallco site. Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke: Peggy Griffin Bern Steves Lisa Warren Jennifer Griffin Govind Tatachari Danessa Techmanski Chair Wang closed the public comment period. Chad Mosley, Acting Assistant Director Public Works and Ben Fu, Acting Director of Community Development explained the current regular review and approval processes for subdivision map approvals. (Commissioner Moore returned to the dais at 3 hrs, 51 mins) 6. Subject: Discussion, recommendations and timeline for development of objective zoning and design review standards Recommended Action: conduct discussion and make recommendations Deputy City Attorney, Seph Petta, updated the Planning Commission regarding their review of the City’s objective standards in the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. City Staff will work with the City Attorney’s office once the evaluation is complete to determine the next steps in revising the Code language. Chair Wang opened the public comment period and the following individual(s) spoke: Jennifer Griffin Govind Tatachari Bern Steves Peggy Griffin Lisa Warren Chair Wang closed the public comment period. The Planning Commissioners discussed the areas of the zoning design review and objective standards needing to be revised or clarified. Moved by Wang and seconded by Saxena to: “Create a Study Session at the next Planning Commission meeting on Objective Standards”. The motion carried 5-0-0. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioners Fung mentioned the various public meetings he has attended. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 pm to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on May 14, 2019 at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ______/s/Beth Ebben_______________ Beth Ebben, Deputy Board Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: May 14, 2019 SUBJECT Study session to create a list of objective standards topics as suggested by the Planning Commission and the public. RECOMMENDATION Discuss or conduct Study Session to prioritize a list for consideration. BACKGROUND At a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on April 16, 2019, City Council approved the City’s Work Program for FY 2019-2020. One of the items is the creation of objective standards. DISCUSSION At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 2019, the Commission discussed under New Business an item added by the Chair on “Discussion, recommendations and timeline for development of objective zoning and design review standards”. The Commission approved a motion to “create a Study Session at the next Planning Commission meeting on Objective Standards”. Attached is a list of proposed objective standards topics received from Planning Commissioners. Attachment: 1. Suggested objective standards from Commissioner Moore 2. Suggested objective standards from Commissioner Fung Ideas for Objective Standards Kitty Moore Planning Commission April 23, 2019 Park land • Define requirements in park deficient areas ⿞ Define park deficient areas ‣ show on maps ‣ Define recreation area (is it an aquatic center, gym, basketball court, badminton facility) ⿞ Show on maps ‣ Show population density expected to use ‣ Define park land ⿞ Size and shape requirements ‣ Requirements to developers to dedicate park land acreage as a development criteria ‣ Future population policies to maintain park land ratios ⿞ Review in parallel with the coming Quimby Act requirements ⿞ Include community garden space in park land requirements for all new residential developments. Define requirement. ⿞ Traffic • Level of Service as threshold of significance in CEQA (EIR) process ⿞ Bicycle Level of Service ⿞ Potential autonomous vehicle requirements for a future city fleet concept ⿞ For instance, residents are allowed access to autonomous vehicles remaining in some mapped area. ‣ Parking area policy ‣ Charging area determinations ‣ Cupertino General Plan Introduction • Consider the Vision Statement: ⿞ “...vibrant, mixed-use “Heart of the City.”” ‣ Correct inconsistencies in maps of “Heart of the City” ‣ Create objective standards to maintain the vision ‣ Ch. 2 Planning Areas • PA-3, define “more pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities” ⿞ Define ‘gateway’ on a bordering jurisdiction (are 95’ hotels acceptable on a city boundary adjacent to single-4 story ⿞ properties?) Correct map on PA-7, boundaries of Heart of the City ⿞ Define boundaries of the ‘tree lined boulevard’ ‣ Define how commerce centers will be configured ‣ Define frontages, breaks in architectural features, distance between park areas, shade canopy, pollinator pathways, ‣ dark skies, roof policy, sustainability (green building), fire safety in surface materials Define roof setback requirements precisely and show precisely the requirements for maintaining the building mass ‣ below the setback line. Remove the word ‘bulk’ as in the bulk of the building will be below the 1:1 setback for example. Provide dimensions for how long a building can be without a change in the face plane. Such as, for ever 100 feet ‣ of building length there shall be a plane-break along the facade comprised of an offset of a least 7 feet in depth by 30 feet in length. The off set shall extend from the grade to the highest story. Provide minimum street width to building height requirements to avoid caverns ‣ Address the move to electric heating and cooling ‣ Roof policy defining requirements for white, green, and solar ‣ Solar retrofitting city property policy ‣ Sidewalk shading policy. Distances between unshaded areas at noon for example. ‣ Inclusionary Housing ⿞ Policy for shelters ‣ Policy for ELI ‣ Require the city to post on the website what the RHNA numbers are, how many applications have been approved ‣ and associated benefits in the developer agreements associated with the approvals. Policy such as Housing Element sites with no housing after two years forfeit the designation to have it ‣ redistributed. Define ‘buffers’ with dimensions and type: if a boundary wall define minimum height, setbacks have actual ‣ distances, park areas be specifically defined Have requirements for all Specific Plan Areas such as height, decrease density to match allocations in Table LU-1, ‣ remove expired allocations, create residential specifically zoned areas outside of mixed use clearly defined. Separate non-residential land use designations to remove the commercial/office from mixed use except for ‣ specified clearly though out mixed use areas. Consider removing community benefits from project approvals or have some more direct connection between the ‣ project impact and the benefits provided. Eliminate in lieu of fees where they are addressing a need in a area not meeting standards. ‣ Consider a BMR city wide dispersal requirement. Define dispersal, both within a BMR project and city-wide. ‣ Provide for senior retirement living for active seniors wanting proximity to shopping dining and entertainment areas. ‣ Solar Access policy. In consideration of health and wellness, especially gardeners and urban farmers, provide a ⿞ quantified requirement for allowable changes in solar access. Specify a shadow policy based on Berkeley’s ⿞ Zoning height density FAR lot width sp Areas make he s h t res densityk Govind urban growth who open space mixed use land are what valuen being promoted duffn o o s Bem General Plan fisticious GP on website never reviewedfeg Ccc us authentic GPS American Eagle Publishing Peggy G retail define it retail how much open to public what horns Cash purchase policy define Planned D.evelopment define no permits issued before covenants bye record redliningLisWretail Marist Apple has ground floorPub14Employeepricelist R t percentages 95 new retail 25 Cupertino Village Planning Commissioner David Fung: My goal here is to encourage the adoption of objective development standards which will yield more predictable end results to the community and builders from better early-stage communication. Many of the project conflicts we face today (simple home additions to major mixed-use redevelopments) stem from existing standards which don't directly reflect community planning desires. 1) Adopt Form Based Code standards for all Special Planning Areas. Traditional standards (height, FAR, or setback) insufficiently capture the elements that matter in a design proposal. Some standards like residential density undermine good design goals (density limits encourage larger units). FBC can objectively set standards for building mass and articulation and incorporate placemaking and human-scale elements at the start of the design process. FBC is the best way to express "neighborhood flavor" to preserve or enhance the existing character of an area. FBC adoption is not equal to increased densification! We can impose objective restrictions via FBC - for instance, a Heart of the City FBC can maintain the tree corridor and setback standards today while making for better quality redevelopment in the years ahead. 2) Standards that vary by project scale. Small and large projects have intrinsically different requirements which should be reflected in the GP and building code. For example, including residential parking in the FAR calculation effectively controls mass in a SFH area, but the same rule is not meaningful for a 200-unit multi-story apartment building. New objective standards should be appropriate for the scale of a project, which might require dividing R-3 regulations to reflect small, medium, and large projects. This affects FAR calculation, setbacks, parking requirements, and more. 3) Codify "resident-facing commercial uses" in the GP. Today's GP does not recognize a difference between commercial activities that serve the community (retail, consumer services, dentist) and those that do not (a corporate office with no local interaction) while they have very different effects on the community. We should recognize that difference and set separate land-use allocation limits in projects and city-wide. 4) Revisit Heart of the City Specific Plan - update HoC Specific Plan to reflect its status as a primary transit route Unify the existing 5 subareas into a single entity Unify land-use designations across the area set appropriate development allocations for the entire area elminate GP LU-1.3.1.3 and LU-1.3.1.4 (residential in mixed-use restrictions) change the "75% direct retail frontage" requirement in the HoC SP to reflect resident-facing commercial 5) Consider Heart of the City updates to special areas served by transit (North and South DeAnza, etc.) but not covered by Specific Plan Move to a unified land-use model/entitlement across the special area as in 4) above 6) Eliminate citywide major allocation table Allow applications and entitlement by special area or land-use category rather than limited by citywide allocation table. Impose developmental limits by special area or citywide limits established with GP rather than on a site basis We should encourage redevelopment on sites as owners want to do it rather than handing out "golden tickets" during the GP update process. 7) Don't require parcel consolidation. The city's requirement for parcel consolidation at Vallco was intended to facilitate complete redevelopment, but has greater impact to the community because of the size of the resultant project. This would not prohibit consolidation, but we shouldn't make this a necessity. 8) Reconsider the design review process. The current process which involves a late stage architectural review is both highly subjective (applicant can't anticipate feedback) and limited in scope (too late in process to address placemaking concerns). A better set of front end guidelines (including Form Based Code) can make this a more effective process. 9) Reconsider the landscape review process. Similar to 8) but for landscape plan approval, identifying a more comprehensive set of requirements at the outset makes for a better and more objective approval. 10) Clarify impact fee exemptions. Current regulations are ambiguous on whether a project owes parkland, BMR, and traffic impact fees. There should be an explicit default for each fee and each class of development that might be assessed, including regular construction, BMR homes, ADUs, and any other categories. It's unclear why a 100% BMR housing project would owe affordable housing fees, but the current law leaves this to the Council's discretion. This would not change the Council's ability to demand or exempt a project from impact fees, but makes the process clearer from the start. 11) Market rate ADUs should NOT count as Moderate BMR production - Today all ADUs would be counted toward the city's Moderate RHNA production, even though many have no BMR obligations or restrictions. This is an oversight that should be fixed. 12) Review of Park Land Dedication policy - Should include objective definition of "recreational facility" as well as grade-level land requirements and alternatives. The park land requirement should scale with the size of the proposed project per 2) above. 13) Adopt decarbonization policy - Objective standards for reduction of greenhouse gas through electrification in the building code should be established along with a time line to phase in these requirements on residential and commercial properties. 14) Adopt sequestration policy - Objective updated standards for city and private plantings and landscaping should be established that encourage plant species that remove carbon dioxide and particulates from the air. 15) Adopt parking lot shading standard - Objective standards that aim for mature tree coverage of some percentage of the grade-level footprint of parking lots/structures to reduce heat island effect should be considered. In Mountain View, this is currently 40% coverage. 16) Adopt VMT standards - VMT and LOS traffic analysis are often in opposition. With VMT established by the state as the standard for review, the GP and codes should reflect that unambiguously, even while we continue to perform LOS studies. 17) Adopt Vision Zero standards - Traffic impact analysis is a part of many project proposals under Planning Department review. Although Cupertino has not adopted Vision Zero traffic safety practices, the city is active in alternative transit projects and there is a synergy here. Consideration of the multi- national Vision Zero program goals would help identify best practices around non-auto mobility.